Talk:Doctor Who: Difference between revisions
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:::::Is there any point to this discussion? There's [[WP:No deadline|no rush]] to change anything, so can't we wait for just 8 days, when the "The Pilot" will be broadcast. It's not long! [[User:TedEdwards|<span style="color:green"><big>T</big><small>ed</small></span>]][[User talk:TedEdwards|<span style="color:orange"><big>E</big><small>dwards</small></span>]] 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
:::::Is there any point to this discussion? There's [[WP:No deadline|no rush]] to change anything, so can't we wait for just 8 days, when the "The Pilot" will be broadcast. It's not long! [[User:TedEdwards|<span style="color:green"><big>T</big><small>ed</small></span>]][[User talk:TedEdwards|<span style="color:orange"><big>E</big><small>dwards</small></span>]] 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::To the IP... What do you think the opening credits are? I'll post a link at [[WT:TV]] for the project members to come here and expand on this topic. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
::To the IP... What do you think the opening credits are? I'll post a link at [[WT:TV]] for the project members to come here and expand on this topic. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::Hang on a second - we need to wait for someone to be credited in a role before we say that they're playing that role? when did that rule get written, cause it's utterly stupid!! Does that mean that when the new doctor is announced and the rest of the world is talking about it and publishing reliable sources left right and centre, wiki won't be able to put down that he he's playing the doctor until the first episode of series 11 has actually aired?!?! The concept of waiting till someone has played a role before being able to put it on wikipedia is ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/94.1.61.64|94.1.61.64]] ([[User talk:94.1.61.64|talk]]) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== John Hurt's War Doctor == |
== John Hurt's War Doctor == |
Revision as of 16:43, 8 April 2017
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Doctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Template:WikiProject British TV shows Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A news item involving Doctor Who was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 August 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 23, 2007, November 23, 2009, November 23, 2010, and November 23, 2015. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | Material from Doctor Who was split to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Doctor_Who on 6 December 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
The Doctors Fascination with Earth
I think it would benefit to add in the premise that the Doctors fascination with Earth possibly stems from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I realize that the movie wasn't originally accepted as canon, but with the inclusion of Mcgann in the 50th anniversary special and the Big Finish audio stories featuring Mcgann, it would seem the events of the movie should be accepted into canon.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. I recommend WP:OUTUNIVERSE. We do not talk about "canon": we talk about what reliable sources say about a TV show. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to say anything about canon, I was simply bringing up canon to reinforce my point about adding the comment about the Doctors fascination possibly stemming from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I think it holds more credibility to point to events from actually released material in the Who universe rather than sources who talk about the show.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- You need to cite a secondary source that makes that analysis. An encyclopaedia isn't supposed to do that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Series 11
A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Five years confirmed
The article states that, "In April 2015, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who would run for at least another five years, extending the show until 2020." I dispute the use of the word "confirmed" and suggest "predicted" instead. User:AlexTheWhovian disagrees. We've been discussing this at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11), but AlexTW pointed out the use of the phrase here.
As far as I can see, the citation given merely quotes an interview with Moffat. He's making a personal prediction of what he thinks will happen. It's not a decision that is within his power, nor is it a decision the BBC would take (when have the BBC ever confirmed a series will still be going five years hence?). AlexTW contends this constitutes an official statement by the BBC because the citation is a BBC News article, but that appears to me to misunderstand the editorial independence of BBC News when it is covering entertainment news pertaining to the BBC. The article is carefully phrased to be clear that this is something Moffat said: it doesn't state this to be a fact about reality. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Radio Times gives some more context with Steven referencing discussions with BBC Worldwide. However both Radio Times and BBC appear to be sourcing from DWM - so someone might like to track down the issue and get the full reference and context. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the RT article. Those are positive comments and I'm happy to have them in the article, but I still don't think there's anything there that confirms the show will run another 5 years. This is a personal prediction by someone leaving the show. An informed prediction, sure, but not a confirmation. Bondegezou (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Eleventh Doctor is Tenth Regeneration, Not Twelfth
The article erroneously refers to the Eleventh Doctor as the Doctor's twelfth regeneration. He was the tenth.
First Doctor = Original Second Doctor = First Regeneration Third Doctor = Second Regeneration Fourth Doctor = Third Regeneration Fifth Doctor = Fourth Regeneration: This is mentioned in The Five Doctors special. Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor asks Peter Davison as the Fifth: "Regeneration?" To which he replies, "Fourth." The First Doctor then says, "So there are FIVE of me now!" Sixth Doctor = Fifth Regeneration Seventh Doctor = Sixth Regeneration Eighth Doctor = Seventh Regeneration Ninth Doctor = Eighth Regeneration Tenth Doctor = Ninth Regeneration Eleventh Doctor = Tenth Regeneration Twelfth Doctor = Eleventh Regeneration Thirteenth Doctor = Twelfth Regeneration
Thus, if The Doctor were not given a new set of regenerations, the Thirteenth Doctor would be unable to regenerate and would die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:42D0:E182:1B8F:B199:C723 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- See The Time of the Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- All explained in the linked episode above. Also, here is a chart I like to keep handy to explain this sort of issue. Enjoy. -- AlexTW 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You left out the War Doctor. So you are wrong. Oakymut2016 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
New Reference Site
Given the imminent release of series 10 on April 15, 2017, why not add The Doctor Who Companion as a reference site.
A good resource for readers/viewers, who want to check what last year was all about before the start of series 10 http://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2017/03/23/march-2016-17-one-year-in-doctor-who/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John verbic (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is an unofficial fan website that does not conform to WP:V. -- AlexTW 06:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Pearl Mackie: now or when?
Is Pearl Mackie the companion in Dr Who right now? This is the question behind a recent edit dispute. Should she be listed in the infobox as the companion (with Matt Lucas) now or not until her first episode airs?
Several editors are defending the current position that she's not the companion until her first episode starts broadcasting. Others, including myself, disagree. I think that position falls foul of WP:INUNIVERSE. Mackie is clearly already in the role because that first episode has been made, she's all over promotional materials, she's presented that way and, thus, reliable sources have responded and describe her in that role. Do a Google news search and there are hundreds of articles talking about Mackie as the companion in the present tense. Waiting for her face to actually appear on screen is privileging the fiction over the reality of making and promoting a television show, and Wikipedia favours the latter over the former.
The principle of least surprise also argues that we should be listing her now. That's what readers will expect. They'll be coming to the article to learn about the new season and the new companion. The infobox should reflect that.
Pearl Mackie is the companion in Dr Who right now, because Dr Who is a production, not a fictional universe. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and reliable sources describe her as the companion now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say that she's the companion in future, as yet unaired (ie unpublished), episodes. Things in manuscripts aren't true in terms of writing about fictional characters until they're published as they're not verifiable by the general public. DonQuixote (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I always think it is good to refer to policy in these cases - however after quickly reading WP:FUTURE - I'm actually more confused about this. Maybe there is something more specific that someone knows about? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}, and the rules and consensus's set by WP:TV: put simply, no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited as a companion, and hence she does not get included as a companion until such an episode exists; this also applies especially to the updating of the number of series - it does not get updated until the series is publicly available via its airing. Honestly, it's a week and a half away, and for some reason, editors always seem to think that Doctor Who is outside of the Television WikiProject and its consensus's. -- AlexTW 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say she is the companion right now: they use the present tense, not the future tense. WP:TV is applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of dubious nature. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide an example of a publicly available episode where she has been credited as the companion. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say she is the companion right now: they use the present tense, not the future tense. WP:TV is applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of dubious nature. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}, and the rules and consensus's set by WP:TV: put simply, no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited as a companion, and hence she does not get included as a companion until such an episode exists; this also applies especially to the updating of the number of series - it does not get updated until the series is publicly available via its airing. Honestly, it's a week and a half away, and for some reason, editors always seem to think that Doctor Who is outside of the Television WikiProject and its consensus's. -- AlexTW 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Has anyone EVER been "credited" as a companion? As far as i know, the credits have only ever has characters names - none have ever said which ones are companions and which ones are not. 12:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.233 (talk)
- I think we can read within context and realise that Alex meant credited as the respective character.
- @Bondegezou: It's not dubious when it's based on acadaemic consensus of not treating unpublished work as if it were published. And I highly doubt that only a handful of editors are involved in WP:TV, so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS goes right out the window, I'm sorry to say. DonQuixote (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter how many editors: WP:TV cannot overrule basic Wikipedia principles.
- It would fail RS to cite an unpublished work, but no-one's suggesting that. We're suggesting citing the dozens of published RS reports that describe Mackie now as the companion. You wish to ignore those secondary sources and rely purely on a primary source (an episode being broadcast): that violates WP:PRIMARY. This obsession with the primary material is a common flaw in TV and film coverage on Wikipedia, but WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear that we look to secondary sources over primary sources. Any reasoning that privileges the episode itself over secondary sources is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, reliable sources are saying that she's the companion for series 10--a body of work that hasn't been published yet. Please stop quoting out of context.
- And infoboxes are for summarising published works related to the subject. DonQuixote (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any point to this discussion? There's no rush to change anything, so can't we wait for just 8 days, when the "The Pilot" will be broadcast. It's not long! TedEdwards 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- To the IP... What do you think the opening credits are? I'll post a link at WT:TV for the project members to come here and expand on this topic. -- AlexTW 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on a second - we need to wait for someone to be credited in a role before we say that they're playing that role? when did that rule get written, cause it's utterly stupid!! Does that mean that when the new doctor is announced and the rest of the world is talking about it and publishing reliable sources left right and centre, wiki won't be able to put down that he he's playing the doctor until the first episode of series 11 has actually aired?!?! The concept of waiting till someone has played a role before being able to put it on wikipedia is ridiculous. 94.1.61.64 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
John Hurt's War Doctor
John Hurt's War Doctor should be added to the list because if anyone has watched the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode -- The Day of the Doctor -- he is listed in the Credits of the Doctor as the fourth name from the top. Here is how it is shown in the Credits of the episode...
Matt Smith, David Tennant <--- There should be a note that David Tennant's "11th" Doctor used a regeneration cycle to repair his body but redirected it the rest of the Regeneration Energy to his severed hand, Christopher Eccleston, John Hurt <--- This shows that even though he is the War Doctor he is the 9th one in the line who at the end REGAINS his name as the Doctor, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davidson, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, William Hartnell,
Also it should be considered that though Peter Capaldi is considered the 13th Doctor (also mentioned in "The Day of the Doctor") that he should be considered the 14th Doctor due to David Tennant's Doctors 11th Regeneration was redirected to his severed hand as everyone can see in Season 4 Episodes 12 and 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkie38 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please review Writing About Fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Trekkie38: There have been multiple discussions on that. Please see the archives of this talk page. -- AlexTW 01:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class Doctor Who articles
- Top-importance Doctor Who articles
- B-Class BBC articles
- High-importance BBC articles
- WikiProject BBC articles
- B-Class television articles
- High-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- Top-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- B-Class science fiction articles
- High-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- B-Class media franchise articles
- Top-importance media franchise articles
- WikiProject Media franchises articles
- B-Class Cardiff articles
- Mid-importance Cardiff articles
- WikiProject Cardiff articles
- B-Class Wales articles
- Low-importance Wales articles
- WikiProject Wales articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2015)